Talk:Peak Reservation Ordinance

A Better Hypothetical

Consider West Philadelphia, long plagued by neighborhood crime. Suppose further that it has been statistically shown that most crimes were perpetuated by individuals of African American descent. In response to this, the City Council adopted a new ordinance authorizing police officers to stop, search and arrest African American males of age between 18 and 40, without probable cause or reasonable suspicion. Would that be justifiable under the principle of equal protection under the laws? Such a law, to say the very least, is discriminatory on its face, and would definitely have been struck down had it been passed by courts under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

How is the Peak Reservation Ordinance any different? Consider Hong Kong, long plagued by Bubonic plague. Some Portuguese colonial medical doctor and a colonial governor of British extraction reported further that the plague has been caused by the filthy living habits of the Chinese. In response to this, the Legislative Council adopted a new ordinance authorizing the exclusion of people of Chinese descent from living on the Peak, exempting, incidentally, those Chinese who are either prominent enough or who worked as houseboys for European households. The Chinese are excluded from the Peak categorically without individual review. How is such a law not discriminatory on its face? Being a law that racially discriminates on its face, how can it pass constitutional muster under any civilized legal system? Only in good ole' Hong Kong, apartheid South Africa, pre-Civil-Rights-Movement American South, and Nazi Germany. AR1997 (talk) 16:27, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I added some info about the Light & Pass Ordinance which came just before the Peak reservation Ordinance. Originally this article was supposed to be kept quick and short (even give westerners the benefit of the doubt). But Da Vynci keeps insisting this law is health driven. And I keep having to dig up additional sources to prove this is NOT a health conscious law. Far from it in fact. Da Vynci is looking up colonial HK laws in books like "The Black Death Transformed: Disease and Culture in Early Renaissance Europe"? No wonder this article is so out of balance. Most people got along by the 1950s, so let it be old historical facts. Benjwong (talk) 19:13, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

To Benjwong: Because it WAS a racially-based law, OK? No one here is denying the racial part. What we are debating is: Whether or not it is also has anything to do with the plague. All I did was to include the sources that indicate it had. Yes, as u point out, that era of time was filled with discrimination on the globe, this law is one of the example, people try to solve problems with a discrimination measures. So did the Imperial Chinese Government, which they thought Westerner were barbaric, the force them reside only certain part of Canton, and made them move out during certain time of the year. With your examples, its indicates that discrimination was common and everywhere. But does that exclude the fact that Peak Reservation Ordinance was a discrimination measure to handle the plague, no. It may be a wrong way to handle the problem with today's standard, but doesn't mean the plague never exist and totally unrelated? No. --Da Vynci (talk) 13:28, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

To Benjwong: Haha, which article in wikipedia could practically be supposed to be kept quick and short??--Da Vynci (talk) 14:44, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Benjwong. I agree with you that we should definitely let historical facts speak for themselves. The Light and Pass Ordinance indeed shed light on the Peak Reservation Ordinance. What the Government cannot do directly it achieved its goals indirectly. AR1997 (talk) 20:49, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

To Da Vynci: I don't know where you read "The law was passed because of the plague." in such a simple sentence. I went through 3 excellent sources that talk from a very "east-west" perspective and they seem very certain that social status was a main reason for the law. It is also very consistent with the many strange and bizarre racial laws passed of the period. Look at how mad user AR1997 is getting with you. Benjwong (talk) 18:32, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

To Benjwong: It is interesting to observe how the logic of your argument rely heavily on the idea of "consistency". Judging matters this way could be unrelible. Let's say there are 10 people from "Country A" setting in a courtroom as defendents, just because 8 of them committed robbery, it doesn't mean the other 2 also commited crime. Not in a fair judge's eyes at least. A fair judge wouldn't say "because it is consistence with those from the same country's behaviour, so these 2 persons must have also commited the same crime". In modern day, we call it "stereotype". Just because in some other parts of the world u saw "strange and bizarre racial laws passed" in the period with racial segregation as it sole goal, it doesn't necessarily means in this particluar case racial segregation was the foremost factor . --Da Vynci (talk) 22:15, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Consistency does matter. It is clear that Chinese maids (the group carrying alot of bacteria and germs) are regularly allowed into these rich people's home. This contradicts a health law. Is that simple. Benjwong (talk) 03:05, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

But you can't jump to conclusion with a "consistency" hypothesis. Ha, I knew you would bring up the servant's argument (not maid, sorry for pointing out ur inaccuracy again XD), The reason why servants were allowed while House owners weren't, because servants can be told to follow hygiene instruction. But u can't tell a House Owner how to live their live within their house. As The Great Plague of Hong Kong describes, when someone died from infection in a Chinese family and the Government attempt to disinfect the house, Government officials often encounter furious resistance from Chinese House owners (expecially those with wealth and had women lived in the house) because they think it is degrading to let outsiders to enter their house (especially an unmarried girl's room). If u are ethnic Chinese, u should know this old custom, unless u have lived in overseas for too long and have forgotten those ultra-conservative old Chinese customs. You can't just pick a Hong Kong historical issue and look at it with modern (Chinese-American) eyes, u gotta understand the HK local context and circumstance at the time too. --Da Vynci (talk) 15:53, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

To Da Vynci Just so you know, self-hatred is a very bad thing. How were "Europeans" back then any more hygienic and less superstitious than the "filthy" Chinese? Which part of China were you raised anyways, where you have come to learn these "old custom"? As far as I know, Europeans back in the 19th century still believed in BLOODLETTING (http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Bloodletting), and the anointing of the sick, and many of them of Anglican or Catholic persuasion believed in the doctrine of transubstantiation. How were these any less abominable in your modern, civilized eye than praying to effigies? Listen, I think you have been going out of your way to portray the Chinese as a historically barbaric and filthy people, which is uncalled for. I'm going to undo all the changes you've made, per rules you have produced earlier in our discussion. Also, the word race was used originally to refer to ethnic groups, hence, the Anglo-Saxon race, the Italian race, etc. It wasn't until late 19th century that scientific racism became popularly accepted, which divides the human population into 3 major "races." In any event, if "racism" isn't acceptable to you, how 'bout ethnic profiling? That would do, I'm sure, even for an Uncle Tom as eager to defend his European masters as you yourself, sir. You have gone so out of your way to defend the ethnically discriminatory behavior of your European daddies that I think they ought to hand you an OBE (Other Bugger's Effort? They discriminate, and have their Uncle Tom houseboy defend them. LOL.) AR1997 (talk) 17:33, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Why are you bringing this up??? The majority of the people who were house owners at the peak were europeans. None of these customs apply to them. Not only were chinese maids allowed, but records showed european peak-residents frequently rode rickshaws run by chinese people until car culture developed. There is no sign anywhere that showed westerners were ever isolated from the plague. Benjwong (talk) 16:39, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Why??! Because, first of all u have got to understood and accept the situation at the time, Chinese ppl in late Qing era didn't live life like we do today. Cantonese customarily threw left-over food into the street, believing sickness was caused by the devil, believing plague can be treated with ash of incense from temple, no modern hygiene awareness, etc. The Ordinance didn't forbid Chinese from accessing the Peak, it just forbid Chinese from residing on the Peak, thus avoiding the above living habit/condition (i.e. not the people). Coz if a Chinese family who reside on the Peak, and someone in that Chinese house get infected and died, Government can't tell the Chinese house owner how to live their life (such as not to throw left-over food in their own back yard, or not to treat plague using ash from burned incense), the Government even had great difficulty disinfecting infected people's houses. The Goverment tried to disinfect a lot of Chinese families house in Victoria City, often encountered great resistance as I described above. The ordinance also make all houses on the Peak are built in Western detached style on peak , instead of the usual Chinese enclosed centre court yard house this which lack ventilation and promote environment for the speard of the plague. The ordinance may not establish isolation, but surely reduced risk in their perspective. --Da Vynci (talk) 17:59, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Your reasoning is fallacious. The ordinance was designed to avoid the people, not the condition. If the legislation really aimed at the condition and not the people, it would not have placed a blanket ban on Chinese people but would rather set up some sort of review mechanism to decide which people (whether European or Chinese) should be allowed to live on the Peak. The entire basis for the ethnically discriminatory treatment was based on the presumption that ALL Chinese people are filthy unless: (1) the Governor-in-Council did not think so; or (2) they worked as houseboy for some European household. AR1997 (talk) 20:38, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

To Benjwong: Furthermore, I also doubt if the Ordinance even qualifies the term racial discrimination, as the Ordinance wasn't even base on skin colour, facial features or hair texture. (According to Race (classification of human beings): The most widely used human racial categories are based on visible traits (especially skin color, cranial or facial features and hair texture), and self-identification.) "Chinese" is an ethnic group, not race. The Ordinance just banned people who come from the country that the Plague originated from entering certain place. Even in modern day, let's say if Country X has a SARS epidemic outbreak that resulted in 100,000 deaths, do u consider banning people from Country X from entering certain places as an act of racial segregation? It seems to me that quarantine would be a better term for that specific situation. --Da Vynci (talk) 23:04, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Whether you accept the social status or plague reasoning, it is still a racially profiled law and should be presented as such for accuracy. Figuring out what ethnic group Chinese people belong and whether the word "quarantine" should be used is pointless. If anything the law rushed to conclusion that Chinese people were a liability. Benjwong (talk) 03:05, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

A country had a deadly plague broke out, 60000 ppl died in Canton in matter of weeks (which is next to HK), this doesn't sounds like a liability to you? No one was asking "which ethnic group Chinese people belong", I was just saying Chinese IS an ethnic group, not a race. Thus the term racial segreation is not applicable here. The term "race" refers to ppl can be differentiated by looking at their apperance. There isn't substainal facial feature u can reliably differentiate Chinese from other Asian. It seems that u have read too much American history (where they had the racial issue of Black and White), and got messed up. --Da Vynci (talk) 16:50, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

When something public is isolated from a group of people for discriminatory reasons, it is racial segregation. It doesn't matter if the Chinese person had 5% or 10% of some other race. I think you are an excellent editor, but going way too far with this ethnic group analysis. Many of the trading posts experiences of the europeans of that era have shown there were no tell the difference between beijinger, cantonese, fujianese. You are thinking from such a modern perspective, I don't think these laws passed at the time was that sophisticated. Benjwong (talk) 18:04, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Moreover, there is not any moral distinction between ethnic and racial segregation - both were based irrationally on a person's unalterable physical characteristic and ancestry. Hence, under modern constitutional jurisprudence, discrimination are subject to the strictest of judicial scrutiny, whether it is based on race, ethnicity, or national origin. The point being, in the eyes of the law, there aren't different. AR1997 (talk) 20:43, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment

I noticed that Da Vynci, a certain self-described Chinese who believed that it is justifiable that the filthy Chinese should be zoned out of the Peak area and that they should kowtow and prostrate themselves before their English masters for permission to live in Mid-Levels, didn't engage with my arguments at all under the Neutrality section. This is obviously because he's been running out of arguments and could do nothing but vandalize the page without first engaging me. In light of this, I too will edit the page without warning whenever it strikes Da Vynci's fancy to vandalize it. AR1997 (talk) 15:31, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

All my edits are referenced and I HAVE responsed your questions in Neutrality sections, and you said you have read them (on 17:00, 19 August 2008 UTC).I don't response to personal attracks by the way.--Da Vynci (talk) 17:01, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I have posted rejoinder to the non sequitur you posted after I had read them at 17:00, Aug 19. You never responded to those. I am entitled to put the material you posted in quotes because, well, they are quotes from various primary sources. This is of particular importance if the subject matter of the materials cited is of such controversial character that by unquoting readers may be misled into believing that what was quoted were actual facts rather than, well, quotes. AR1997 (talk) 20:16, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I protest the unethical behavior of da vynci, a user who did not even explain why he had undone my modification of the article. He attributed the "Europeans" migration to the peak to the "filthy living habits" (whatever that means) of the Chinese, without explaining why that actually was the case. I propose an alternative, yet far more plausible explanation: the Europeans moved because they THOUGHT/CONSIDERED the Chinese filthy, the same way the Afrikaaners and Southerners considered black people unworthy to be their neighbor. If da vynci continues his abusive behavior here, without going through the talk page here, I will report him to the wikipedia and have him removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AR1997 (talk • contribs) 05:39, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I have also changed "the law was demolished in 1930" to "the law was repealed in 1930." You repeal a law, you don't demolish it. An abstract thing is not demolishable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AR1997 (talk • contribs) 19:41, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

• Note for AR1997: My responses are all moved to Neutrality section by Benjwong, please go to Neutrality section if u want to read them.--Da Vynci (talk) 14:33, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

• Note for Da Vynci: Thanks - I just read them, and they, collectively taken, make little sense. I did shift "observe" back to "claim" regarding Sir Wm. Robinson's claims. That's what it is. Observations falsely implies neutrality - how a Colonial Governor could, by definition of his job, be neutral between the interests of the colonizer and the colonized is beyond me. And this is for all the Uncle Toms out there - colonizers don't come and occupy your home because you're all cuddly and cute and they want to pinch your chubby face - they come because it's profitable to do so. And I doubt Sir William would argue against my point. It's only self-deluded Uncle Toms who desperately wish to convince themselves of their colonial overlords' warm affection towards them. AR1997 (talk) 17:00, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Certain unhygienic habits practiced by the chinese at the time did contribute to the spread of the plague, let's face the fact. Not only the Governor saw people habitually throwing leftover food in the street, but so did doctors (it is in the reference of the article). Doctors are no colonizer, right? --Da Vynci (talk) 15:18, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Of course doctors CAN be colonizers, and I am disappointed by your naivete. The only physician you quoted was a Portuguese, no? Who do you think he identified himself more with, filthy Chinese like yourself, or the white man?? Come on now, kid, who are you trying to kid? AR1997 (talk) 15:33, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry but if the source said chinese people were throwing leftovers on the street, and now the british people need to isolate an entire mountain to protect themselves from the rubbish. I am sticking to the exclusive-club reasoning. At least doing it for social purposes make sense. I have rechecked the source (again) and added the contents back in. Benjwong (talk) 04:43, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Don't argue with him Ben, let's just edit the page as we see fit. That's what I'm going to do starting now. If this doesn't get better I'll report to wikipedia and have this page frozen. By the way Uncle Da Vynci - how was an average Chinese (who bathed every day) any filthier than a five-point Irishman like Billy Robinson who bathed like what, one time a week?! You are such a self-hating little s---head that I can't help but feel sorry for your self-hatred. AR1997 (talk) 15:28, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Not the whole mountain mate, just the Peak (which forms a relative small area on the mountain) . The Mid-Level was dominated by all the wealthy Chinese by the way. It is time to read books other than Wiltshire's Old Hong Kong. So your view won't be confined by a single source. --Da Vynci (talk) 10:33, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Haha...Uncle Tom, oops, sorry Uncle Da Vynci, again why don't you tell this to the Memphis "Negroes" who could sit at the back of their buses? Eh? When seats at the front were reserved to whites? Good God - is that what you consider civilization?! AR1997 (talk) 15:23, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality

The original page was not really POV neutral. It promotes the understanding that the Peak Reservation Ordinance was a racially neutral law justifiable on good public policy grounds. For instance, it accepts without any reservation the then Governor of Hong Kong's claim that the law was passed in response to the Bubonic plague. But that was only the law's stated purpose - moreover, if Bubonic plague was the true concern, why not pass other laws that aim at improving the living conditions of the local Chinese? After all, the law was racially discriminatory ON ITS FACE.

I have thus revised the article to make it more POV neutral, by presenting European/British arguments in favor of the racial restriction as arguments and characterizations rather than facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AR1997 (talk • contribs) 19:37, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

The racial arguement is very consistent with that era from 1900-1920s. You don't have to look at HK. You can also look at shanghai which had all types of areas blocked off that prevented chinese citizens from accessing. The plague reasoning doesn't make any sense, since the colonial government officials worked with citizens of all type. Their homes may be uphill, but they spend all day working downhill anyways. Benjwong (talk) 21:46, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

• to Benjwong: The time frame of the Peak Reservation Ordinance (1904-1930)is also very consistence with the development Third Pandemic too, spreaded to HK in late 19th century and stopped in circa 1930. As for blocked access in SH, firstly this article is about HK's Peak Reservation Ordinance, I must state that I admire you daring statement of suggesting "You don't have to look at HK". Secondary, there is a major different between wearing a mask just for the 8 hours you work with "citizens of all type" and wearing a mask 24 hours a day (which includes working hours, family hours, wikipedia editing hours (just kidding), and sleeping hours.)--Da Vynci (talk) 18:58, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

• to Da Vynci: You are talking about the heaviest times of racial segregation 1890s-1920s. There were alot of small racial tension cases at the time. Many are too small to mention for even wikipedia sake due to HK being so tiny and low population back then. But this law was deceptive. You're not going to find too many western sources claiming this was passed for social status. Is like trying to find bad things about communism in a communist party book. You are basically wasting your time. Benjwong (talk) 21:12, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

• to Benjwong: In case u didn't notice, I actually agree that this law is racially prejudicial (coz it assumed chinese=infected), I am the one who added the phrase "racially-based zoning law" in the article. Nevertheless, I also would like to point out that the plague was, beyond reasonable doubt, a major factor too. It is late 19th century earily 20 century we are talking about here. The Government at the time didn't have highly accurate/speedy equipments like today to screen who is infected, they just knew the deadly plague came from China, and piles of dead and dying cuddled together in hong kong's temples. The gruesome scene may have freaked out the British out and since race is the easiest way to screen at the time, so that's why the Peak Reservation Ordinance happened.--Da Vynci (talk) 14:13, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

You can see an old edit history from me. I am well aware of the tungwah hospital. I am not disagreeing with you that the infected corpse were piling up. But I am saying that you are mixing tungwah hospital ordinance and peak reservation ordinance. One is for health benefit. The other one isn't necessarily so. Benjwong (talk) 04:41, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I understand your speaculation. But I dare you say it has nothing to do with the plague. The health related objective of the Ordinance was documentated in the Legco's record, and the time frame is matching so well with the plague that we can't ignore. With other medical journal's supports, the plague was definitely a major factor (whereas race was another factor). --Da Vynci (talk) 08:56, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

And I dare you say that it has nothing to do with racism. Moreover, you're presenting us with a false dichotomy here - the ordinance may as well have been motivated by both health and racism concerns. It's not one or the other. Europeans want to segregate themslves from "filthy" (quoting Sir Wm. Robinson) Chinese like yourself, Da Vynci, both because they think you're filthy and because they don't want to catch this terrible Bubonic plague from you. Does that make sense? AR1997 (talk) 17:03, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

• to AR1997: Responding to your inquiry, "filthy living habits" is referring to Cantonese (in late Qing China era) habit of "threw house refuse (i.e., house refuse=left over food, rotted food ) into the street where it accumulated until such time as the torrential summer rains and the overflow of Pearl River cleared it away." in late Qing China era. It is self-explantory in the article, so I didn't indicate it in the Edit summary. Please sign your comment next time AR1997. --Da Vynci (talk) 08:33, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Da Vynci, I know what refuse means. Your English is so impressive. AR1997 (talk) 18:51, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

• to AR1997: Responding to your inquiry: you said "the Europeans moved because they THOUGHT/CONSIDERED the Chinese filthy, the same way the Afrikaaners and Southerners considered black people unworthy to be their neighbor." What you said may or may not be true, if you have sources to support this claim, you are welcome to add this to the article, wikipedia is for everyone to edit. However, in late Qing China, Chinese still believed that praying, worshipping to effigy, and drinking incense ash could solve health problems and rejected western medicine treatment. [CITATION NEEDED - I'm sure Westerners back then didn't pray to relics and annoint the sick with holy oil - by the way - your calling Chinese deities effigy is culturally insensitive at best and racist/self-hating at worst - what do you call Anglicans or Catholics who believe that they are literally eating Christ's body and blood every Sunday?!] Cantonese Chinese residential house at the time has no or very small window to ensure privacy in the expense of ventilation and sunlight, which provided excellent environment for plague and bacteria. Furious resistance occurred with the British attempted to disinfect houses of infected persons, thus further made the situation hard to control. It is in Wiltshire's book Old Hong Kong. --Da Vynci (talk) 18:11, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

• to Da Vynci: You should put this in reverse. If HK chinese officials today said a virus broke out, and passed a law to isolate westerners because they believe western culture is filthy and a liability to causing diseases. Then wouldn't this law be racist? If you are pushing this health-related view. Then for historical purposes, the peak reservation was pretty much a racial law under the assumption that old chinese culture was dirty. Which might even be worse than passing the law for social status reasons. Benjwong (talk) 21:12, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

• to Da Vynci: Hey hey, Uncle Da Vynci, why don't you respond to this one? I understand that being a "House Negro" isn't easy, but you should at least try - see it is your burden to show that the European opinion is backed by facts, not the other way round. No one's opinion is entitled to be treated as fact before the foundation of their trustworthiness can be established. It's not the reverse as you had suggested - treating some old British people's opinion as facts until they are proven false. Moreover, how does praying to effigy and drinking ash water make the Chinese any filthier than their European counterparts who pray to statues, believed in transubstantiation, prayed to saints, prayed to relics, and annoint the sick with oil? And oh by the way, a lot of those are practices of both the Roman Catholic Church and the Church of England, like extreme unction. How were the English any less superstitious than the Cantonese Chinese???? Remind me now??? Compared to that what was wrong with praying to effigies and drinking ash water? AR1997 (talk) 16:51, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

• to AR1997 Responding to your comment: "If da vynci continues his abusive behavior here, without going through the talk page here, I will report him to the wikipedia and have him removed." Most of my edits are with reference and reasonable in my honest opinion, and I did provide explainations in edit summary more than one occasions. Just because someone wrote something that you didn't agree, you don't need to accuse that person abusive. I can't recall which of your edits has been removed due to me adding reference and new infomation, I am sorry if it hurt your feeling, but I believe everyone can edit wikipedia without first proposing the edits in Talk page, unless the changes is going to be fundamentals or substantial. Just like you didn't really need to explain in talk page abut changing "demolishable" to "repeal" because it is an obvious improvement.--Da Vynci (talk) 18:11, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

- Improvement on your poor grammar, perhaps, and sorry for hurting your feelings. No Anglophile likes to have their grammar corrected. But you did remove my edits that make this article more POV neutral. For instance, I tried to make clear that all observations of the Chinese being "filthy" (querie what that means) were from a British perspective, yet you removed them, as though what the British at that time thought ought to reflect reality. POV neutrality means treating personal views and observations as it is. So the onus is on you to provide us with conclusive scientific proof done by Third Parties that the Chinese were indeed filthy you have no right to remove my edits. AR1997 (talk) 16:51, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

• to AR1997: Responding to your inquiry regarding "if Bubonic plague was the true concern, why not pass other laws that aim at improving the living conditions of the local Chinese."

Well, it was a true concern, the British actually passed another law to fight the plague for HK Chinese general public, as follow:

from Tung Wah Hospital

Tung Wah Hospital Incorporation Ordinance

The hospital was declared for construction in March 26, 1870 under the "Tung Wah Hospital Incorporation Ordinance". The push for the construction of the facility began when the British Colony's Registrar General saw an indiscriminate mix of the dead and dying cuddled together in a temple. The large number of deaths were in part due to the arrival of the upcoming Third Pandemic of bubonic plague from China.

from Chinese Tung Wah Hospital [1]

早期以中醫中藥療法，贈醫施藥，並且設有大廚房，為留醫病人煎中藥，受華人歡迎。在香港發生鼠疫之後，開始加入西醫藥療法。

As for why the British didn't change HK Chinese's living habit, that was because furious resistance occurred when the British attempted to interfere HK chinese's living custom such as disinfect houses of infected persons.

From all those reference, it is fair to say that the Peak Reservation Ordinance was a law just to ensure the Government officials themselve (and other non-Chinese) don't get infected from the Plague origined from China and could survive, as a consequence, those British were able to inject western medicine methods to traditional chinese institutions such as Tung Wah Hospital, this in turn, saved many HK Chinese lifes. --Da Vynci (talk) 09:01, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Tung wah hospital ordinance IS truly a health conscious law. Peak reservation ordinance was not even close. This was riddled with controversy. Whether people care 100 years later, maybe not. Benjwong (talk) 21:12, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Both Peak Reservation Ordinance & Tung Wah Hospital Incorporation Ordinance are formally documented as health conscious law, Legislative Council's sitting record can proof it. It is just that Peak Reservation Ordinance also happened to be racially based while Tung Wah Hospital Incorporation Ordinance isn't. Anyway, for a century old law that no one cares about (as u described) , it is amazing that it's Talk Page end up having as much as 1800+ words comments, LOL. --Da Vynci (talk) 15:13, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

My God, you actually believed that the sitting record of the LegCo actually reflected the legislative intent. Let me remind you, Uncle Da Vynci, that the LegCo back then had only one or two Chinese members, and the ExCo was composed entirely of "Europeans." And you're giving them the presumption of truthfulness?! You may think your English is good, Uncle Da Vynci, but no Billy Robinson ain't gonna let you join his fancy clubs: The ExCo, the Hong Kong Club, and the Royal Hong Kong Jockey Club. Neither are you gonna get hired as a manager at the HSBC. Too bad, so sad for you, Uncle Da Vynci - your English may serve you some good as a server in the Repulse Bay Hotel. AR1997 (talk) 19:00, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

There are 2 people in this talk page. I don't think too many people care. Benjwong (talk) 04:41, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

• to AR1997: To response your comment of "For instance, it accepts without any reservation the then Governor of Hong Kong's claim that the law was passed in response to the Bubonic plague" The writing in the article didn't accept or reject anything, it says "Governor of Hong Kong Sir William Robinson observed that the filthy habits of life amongst the ethnic Chinese rendered Hong Kong liable to the invasion and development of the germ of the bubonic plague.", it is just stating what has been documented, check the reference if you are in doubt. --Da Vynci (talk) 18:42, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

• to Da Vynci: Please restudy this era if you are interested. Many things were good between the chinese & british. However this law wasn't one of them. Everything in the colonial era was about private clubs, exclusive memberships etc. This law is an extension of that mentality. Basically the peak = better social status. At the time the peak was undeveloped and inconvenient. For a bunch of people with health concerns, wow they sure picked a spot far away from the medical facilities. Who wants to be stuck on a hill top in a health emergency. It doesn't even make sense. Benjwong (talk) 21:12, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

• to Benjwong: LOL, let's study your polarized comment first:

"Everything in the colonial era was about private clubs, exclusive memberships etc." said Benjwong.

As you said "everything", so that includes Tung Wah Hospital Incorporation Ordinance in 1870 that help setting up Tung Wah Hospital that saves general public Chinese lives? and injecting western modern medicine method in the TW hopspital? Establishment of ICAC that fights corruption? Sino-British Joint Declaration is about private clubs, exclusive memberships too?

Do you think now you should use the word "everything" more carefully? Don't tell me that in your definition of "everything" implied excludsion about aforementioned examples. --Da Vynci (talk) 14:49, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

When I say "Everything", I mean the colonial lifestyle is about exclusive clubs and memberships. You really are reading it too deep into other things. Benjwong (talk) 04:41, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

• to Benjwong Yeah, but you didn't say "Everything is XXX , except YYY". You said "Everything is XXX." and that makes your sentence misleading, thus renders your writing unreliable. --Da Vynci (talk) 08:37, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

LOL - it's my turn to laugh my -deleted- off, I guess, da vynci - now we plainly see your motivations. Surely Da Vynci could also say, "ooooh my, my my, although no Chinese was allowed to serve as commissioned officer in the colonial police force before 1916, surely many of them served as non-commissioned officer - there could therefore be no discrimination whatsoever since "not everything" was exclusively "European" (i.e. White)." Nice try, Da Vynci. I'm sure the "Negroes" sitting at the back of the Memphis bus when Rosa Parks first refused to give up her seat would appreciate your logic. You must be missing the British a great deal. Now tell me, you went to an "English medium" school, didn't you? And you speak with what you think of as some sort of King's accent, or em, the received pronunciation, dontcha? Oh perhaps you've even been to our beloved Motherland, the United Kingdom of "Great" Britain and Northern Ireland, lol. But you know what? In the eyes of the folks who did run the Hong Kong Club back in the 1900s and who did exclude Sir Robert Hotung from their membership, you're nothing but a "filthy" (quoting Sir Wm. Robinson) little slitty-eyed c---k. You are ingenuous at best, and a self-hating scoundrel at worst. Herein lies your disingenuity - you brought up the Joint Declaration and the establishment of the ICAC as examples of the British being non-racist - but didn't all of these take place in the post-war years when colonialism were no longer fashionable and racism no longer legit? Who are you kidding anyways? AR1997 (talk) 16:43, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Da Vynci please stop your tagging

Da Vynci, I think you might need to stop the tagging and editing of this article for awhile. Preferably do some research on the many similar racial ordinances in that era and come back later. Benjwong (talk) 18:35, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Benjwong please stop your misunderstanding

To Benjwong: You are refering to this ? I only added 2 tags and a citation needed request after someone added unsourced info in questionable tone. Apart from the above edits, I rarely tag this article so far. Well, u should take a rest from frequent editing on this article too and start doing some research about the Plague and the hygiene condition around that period too. Seriously I think you have read too much about racial conflicts (esp the US ones) as a consequence u tend to narrow ur thoughts to racial explaination even when other major explaination (such as a great plague) was present. --Da Vynci (talk) 06:23, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey Benj - why argue with a vandalizer? We could always undo the irrational changes Da Vynci has introduced every time he vandalizes the article. Don't you see that he has an agenda? No matter how many racial ordinances and restrictive covenants he studies he would always come to the conclusion that non-white people suffered under colonial rule because they deserved it. Don't you see that? AR1997 (talk) 20:35, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Naming the peak "Little england" does not stop any plague. Da Vynci is refusing to accept anything other than the law being a health protection ordinance. Benjwong (talk) 19:58, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Right from the beginning, I have recognized it is a racial-zoning law AND the health concern. But you, don't believe anything else other than racial explaination. --Da Vynci (talk) 00:09, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I don't want to get into a discussion about racial segregation, and personally I'm sure Benjwong is correct in that plenty of historians agree the ordinance preserves racial segregation, however, the version of the article stating "some historians...", which Da Vynci edited and then Benjwong reverted[2], does contain WP:WEASEL and that's problematic. As such, I have to support reverting back to Da Vynci's wordage that gets rid of the WP:WEASEL, until other sources are added to the article to support that other historians also hold such a view. And even then, I believe the wordage should simply be, "Historians believe..." and not "Some historians believe", unless we also add content from an opposing POV. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 14:37, 12 November 2009 (UTC)